Where The Burgess Case Stands Now

January 5, 2010

All Posts, Features, News

Dave Burgess, the Hells Angel who was imprisoned 18 months ago for the interstate transportation of child pornography is still in prison. The Supreme Court declined last month to consider his case. And, his release now depends on the single most important Fourth Amendment case since Terry v Ohio legalized the “Terry Stop” in 1968.

That case is United States versus Comprehensive Drug Testing and this may be the first time your have heard of it. It is too complicated an issue for television because it is impossible to summarize in forty-five seconds of big smiles and perfect hair. The case has also been ignored by all the national newspapers of record. The last judicial decision on this case said that searches of ordinary people’s computers should be conducted with the same restraints now applied to searches of important people’s computers.

In other words the same rules of law should apply to a Hells Angel from Reno that applied to Bernie Madoff. The Obama Administration is fighting that. Many liberals are shocked. Even many conservatives are surprised.

Burgess Dilemma In Brief

Dave Burgess’ current legal problems began when he and another member of the Hells Angels were stopped by a Wyoming Highway Patrol Trooper on the morning of July 24, 2007. The two Angels were going on vacation. They were driving a white motor home to a club national run in Arkansas and they were towing their motorcycles. The putative reason for the traffic stop was that the license plate sticker on the motorcycle trailer was expired.

A mountain of circumstantial evidence proves that the traffic stop was a carefully game-planned pretense to at least harass the two men and probably to also gather “police intelligence” on the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. The stop also seems to have been connected to a decades-long vendetta by various law enforcement agencies against Burgess and members of his immediate and extended family. Burgess is the nephew of Joseph Conforte who opened a legal brothel called the Mustang Ranch in 1971. At the time of the stop he owned a brothel named the Old Bridge Ranch which had been part of the original Mustang Ranch. His father in law, a man named Jay Rigas, was railroaded into a life sentence for dealing drugs in the 1980s.

At the time of the traffic stop Burgess had a clean criminal record. He had been convicted of selling marijuana in the 1980s but the conviction had been overturned on appeal. Federal and local police in northern Nevada have publically acknowledged that they tried to “get” Burgess for years.

Criminal Law For Dummies

If the police are determined to get you they usually can. American criminal law is now a crooked casino game. “Professional policing” is a term that describes a cop’s skill at exploiting arcane legal technicalities to secure a conviction.

The stop of the motor home for a minor traffic violation created a legal pretense for a multi-hour, roadside search. A legal technicality called “reasonable articulable suspicion” is usually met because cops are “law enforcement experts.” In this case, State Trooper Matthew Arnell expertly smelled the odor of “burned marijuana.” It was a legal technicality needed to justify inspection of the motor home by a drug sniffing dog. But it was only a technicality because the dog had, as a matter of established fact, been dispatched to the scene minutes before the actual stop.

The dog “alerted” on something, somewhere outside the motor home. The dog was said to have “alerted on the motor home” because an “expert” dog handler said the dog alerted on the motor home. The “alert” provided “probable cause” that the motor home contained drugs. Eventually, after fumbling through the men’s underwear twice, small amounts of cocaine and marijuana were actually found in the men’s closeted clothes. Technically, if the motor home had been parked, the search could not have been made. Which is why, technically, the men were stopped after travelling a short distance from a diner where they had eaten breakfast.

A detective named Russell Schmitt then entered the case. Schmitt is one of Wyoming’s leading “experts” on illegal drugs and the author of at least two questionable affidavits. Because personal amounts of recreational drugs were actually found in the vacation home of two Hells Angels Schmitt convinced a country judge that the two men were “probably” drug kingpins. That blatantly ridiculous assertion logically led to the even more absurd, but totally legal, assumptions that produced a warrant authorizing the search of Burgess’ personal computer. That search was intended to seek evidence of Burgess’ drug empire. And, it was executed at the official Wyoming repository of child pornography.

When the computer search finally began two months later, the laptop was not found to contain any evidence of drug dealing and the drug charges were dismissed. The search did, however, reveal the largest collection of child pornography ever discovered.

Also on the hard drive were a half dozen sexually provocative images of an adolescent girl Burgess actually knew. Burgess knew the girl because he had a romantic relationship with the girl’s mother and he has always maintained that he does not know how the images got there. The girl’s mother testified at Burgess’ trial that Burgess never had the opportunity to take the photos. It remains a possibility that the girl made and uploaded the images herself.

If Burgess’ defense attorney, James H. Barrett, had ever hired his own expert to conduct a forensic examination of Burgess’ computer hardware the mystery of how the photos got where they were might have been solved. But it never occurred to Barrett to do so.

So four months after the traffic stop Burgess was charged with the morals offense that eventually landed him in prison. He was found guilty by a jury in Cheyenne in July 2008 and he is now in prison in Texas. Both Burgess and the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club were widely smeared in news accounts.


Burgess’ defense attorney was, arguably, ineffective. Barrett did, after all, lose the case.

And, Burgess refused to cop a plea. He was one of the three percent of federal defendants who actually insist on a trial. And, predictably his judge was unsympathetic. His prosecutor, a man named James C. Anderson has never lost a child pornography case. The evidence against Burgess largely comprised proving that the defendant owned a legal brothel in Nevada and that he belonged to the Hells Angels. The dozen Derek Zoolanders who formed the jury concluded that those two predicates proved Burgess was, at least in his heart, a pedophile.

After his conviction Burgess hired a new lawyer and appealed everything about his case that could be legally appealed: That he was actually tried for being a Hells Angel and the owner of a bawdy house; that his sentence was illegally harsh; and most importantly that the search of his computer was illegal.

The legality of the computer search is what transforms the Burgess case from just another injustice into a fight for the soul of America. You already know about this fight because it is one story that television news actually will carry. Because it is a simple fight. One side sincerely believes that cops should sort everyone into good and bad boxes. And, after the cops put you in the bad box they no longer need to play fair. The other side argues that the Constitution means what it says.

What Is Reasonable

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In the simplest terms, the Constitution requires that police must search for “something” and not just search for “whatever we can find.” Dave Burgess was stopped, his motor home was tossed and his computer was searched because the cops were looking for whatever they could find. And the rationalization that justifies that is that the police had already shoved Burgess into a box with a “bad” label on the side. Anyone who will speak candidly about the case candidly admits this.

A legal fairy tale was invented to search for evidence of Burgess’ drug empire. It was only a legal fiction. Burgess was never formally accused of selling drugs. Instead, he was convicted, as the judge put it at his sentencing, of being “addicted to child pornography.” And that federal judge inferred that Burgess’ stubborn insistence that he was not “addicted to child pornography” only proved that Burgess was so depraved that he was in denial.

Through The Looking Glass

It is the endlessly recurring nightmare of federal court: The most damning evidence against any defendant is always his insanely depraved insistence on his innocence.

Similarly, “probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” that Burgess was a child porn addict could only be asserted after his laptop computer and his portable drives were searched, in the state child porn bank, for evidence that Burgess was a ghetto drug dealer. That search of everything on the drives, 44 days after they were last in Burgess possession, found child pornography. So the search for something every rational person knew would not be there provided probable cause to search for something that had already been found.

Circumstantial evidence very strongly suggests that Burgess was framed of the crime for which he was convicted. The child porn allegation came completely out of left field. It surprised everyone who was even casually acquainted with him. It even seemed to surprise Burgess. There had never been any hint that collecting child pornography was one of Burgess’ passions. As of the beginning of 2010 the only existing connection between Dave Burgess and child pornography is the child pornography “discovered” on his computer in the official Wyoming repository of child pornography.

Which immediately raises several obvious questions. And, the one a lawyer would want to ask first is whether the evidence against Burgess was legally or illegally found.

Two Dull Metaphors

The cynically drawn line between what is and is not a “reasonable search” is usually illustrated with metaphors. And unfortunately, the metaphors are imagined by lawyers, rather than poets, so they never shine. Half the time they hardly even glow. The two metaphors that apply to computer searches are the metaphor of “plain sight” and the metaphor of the “suitcase.”

The “plain sight” metaphor or doctrine says that cops do not have to be blind. If you like to keep your marijuana plants and your machine guns in plain sight in the middle of your living room, and a cop legally enters your home, either by invitation or with a search warrant, and he happens to notice those illegal things which you have placed in plain sight, then your marijuana and your machine guns may be lawfully used as evidence to convict you of their possession.

The metaphor of the “suitcase” is more recent and specious. Simply put, it is the legal doctrine that a personal computer is not really a personal computer but only a kind of suitcase. A customs agent may open the lid of your suitcase and rummage through your belongings and if he spots drugs, guns or undeclared French perfume that evidence of your smuggling is considered to be in “plain sight” and can be used against you.

In the same way, until four months ago, using the suitcase metaphor, federal courts have always held that a policeman may begin a search of your personal computer looking for evidence of any crime. Then, because you may have hidden or encrypted that evidence, the policeman can go through all the millions of pages and trillions of pieces of information on your computer looking for explicit evidence that you are, say, a member of Al Qaeda. And, then if he just happens to find evidence that you cheat on your income taxes he can prosecute you for income tax evasion instead.

Burgess Appeal Denied

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver denied Burgess appeal of his conviction last August 11th. Using the suitcase metaphor, the Appeals Court wrote:

“In discussion of reasonable expectations of privacy we likened a computer to a suitcase or briefcase because a ‘personal computer is often a repository for private information the computer’s owner does not intend to share with others’ and since ‘intimate information is commonly stored on computers, it seems natural that computers should fall into the same category as suitcases, footlockers, or other personal items that command a high degree of privacy….’

“At first blush,” the learned judges continued, “there appears no reason to treat computers differently than, for instance, a locked briefcase in the locked trunk of an automobile. There is a privacy expectation for a briefcase or suitcase, which may contain very personal and confidential papers – particularly when well secured in the trunk of a car. Yet the automobile exception subjects the briefcase to search. So why not the
computer? What is the difference between a file cabinet, suitcase or briefcase and a computer?”

Burgess argued that a computer isn’t a suitcase at all but a “virtual home” and that allowing the police to search computers without any limits was an “extraordinary expansion” that would “destroy a citizen’s expectation of privacy on his computer.”

Many people who own computers would sympathize with his position but the Tenth Circuit just ran away from the issue of limitless computer searches. “The Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has not directly addressed this issue,” the Tenth Circuit explained. And, then they snidely added, “one might speculate whether the Supreme Court would treat laptop computers, hard drives, flash drives or even cell phones as it has a briefcase or give those types of devices preferred status because of their unique ability to hold vast amounts of diverse personal information. Interesting as the issue may be, we need not now resolve it because the search of Burgess’ hard drives was authorized by a warrant.”

The Tenth Circuit judges seemed to sink Burgess’ case when they rejected his appeal to them on August 14th. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the United States on November 4th, 2009 and that court refused to hear the case on December 14th.

Which usually signals the end of the legal line. But not this time.

The BALCO Case

Because at virtually the same moment that the Tenth Circuit was laughing Burgess off, the identical issue of what is and is not a reasonable computer search was being argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California. That case is United States versus Comprehensive Drug Testing. It is about professional baseball players being accused of using anabolic steroids. The case is popularly known as the BALCO case after a California business named the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative. BALCO’s most famous client was San Francisco Giants slugger Barry Bonds.

But those players who were not Barry Bonds were accused only after a computer search for other records at a drug lab revealed that those other player’s names were in files on a hard drive. No warrant had ever been issued to search for those players names but according to previous rulings on computer searches, any time a computer is legally searched everything on that computer – everything – whether it is being legally searched for or not, is considered to be in “plain sight.”

The Ninth Circuit opinion was issued two weeks after the Tenth Circuit called Burgess’ argument speculative and “interesting” but not worth the bother to actually consider. The author of the Comprehensive Drug Testing opinion was Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. Kozinski is a Reagan appointee and he made it clear that he understands exactly what is happening with computer searches.

What Kozinski Said

“If the government can’t be sure whether data may be concealed, compressed, erased, or booby-trapped without carefully examining the contents of every file… then everything the government chooses to seize will, under this theory, automatically come into plain view,” Kozinski wrote. “Since the government agents ultimately decide how much to actually take, this will create a powerful incentive for them to seize more rather than less…. Let’s take everything back to the lab, have a good look around, and see what we might stumble upon.”

Kozinski went on the say that “the government (must) waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine” and that computer searches should not even be carried out by police, To keep the police from doing mischief, Kozinski said, legal computer searches must be conducted by “specialized personnel or an independent third party.”

If the rules the Ninth Circuit said should govern computer searches had been written two months earlier, Dave Burgess would probably be free today. The Ninth Circuit opinion, clearly makes the kind of search that was used to frame Burgess illegal. Federal police have been trying to “get” Burgess for something, anything, for more than 30 years and they only succeeded after they were allowed to go through every personal, private detail of his life for a month and a half until they found something they might be able to use. What they found to use turned out to be pictures of an adolescent girl that Burgess says he did not even know were there and that could be innocently explained.

It is the exact opposite of how criminal justice is supposed to work. The police are supposed to observe crimes and prosecute the people who commit them. It should not be the job of the police to form an opinion about who they like and do not like and then use their official powers to get the people they do not like. It is the negative of freedom.

The procedures the Ninth Circuit mandated for computer searches are not even new. For years now, third party, so called “filter teams” have been routinely used in white collar investigations to separate what the search warrant names from everything else on a hard drive.

When a banker is accused of embezzlement cops do not search his computer for evidence of that embezzlement. Third party, professional filter teams search the banker’s computer to intentionally limit the search to whatever the warrant specifies. So, one of the biggest problems Burgess had with his defense was that he was a Hells Angel instead of a crooked banker.

When Cats Are Dogs

Based on conventional wisdom you might think a judge appointed by Reagan would side with the police. And, based on the same conventional wisdom you might think the Obama Administration would side with the victims of police oppression. But just the opposite is true.

“Conservative” legal scholars like law professor Orin Kerr have argued that the Ninth Circuit opinion “handcuffs” police but even Kerr gets it. Four years ago in the Harvard Law Review Kerr conceded that the doctrine of plain sight in computer searches “may need to be narrowed or even eliminated in digital evidence cases to ensure that digital warrants that are narrow in theory do not devolve into general warrants in practice.”

Only the Obama Justice Department is actually trying to get the opinion overturned. And, the Justice Department is trying to accomplish that in a suspiciously unconventional way.

What Next

The Ninth Circuit decision limiting computer searches was heard en banc, which is to say that it was heard by a full appeals court of eleven judges. Those judges agreed by a vote of nine to two that those searches should be limited. In most jurisdictions, like the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver, the matter would be already decided.

However the Ninth Circuit in California is special. The Ninth Circuit hears so many cases that it actually has a pool of 27 judges who convene in groups of eleven. And, that is the technicality the Obama Administration hopes to use to overturn reasonable limits on computer searches.

Last November 25th, the Solicitor General of the United States, Elena Kagan, filed a petition to rehear the case super en banc, which is to say before all 27 members of the judges’ pool in the Ninth Circuit. It is an unprecedented request. In every other case in the history of the United States an appeal would be made to the Supreme Court. That court would either agree to hear the case or not. If the highest court does not hear the case Kozinski’s opinion would become the law of the land.

Solicitor Who

The Solicitor General is the United States Attorney who tries cases before the Supreme Court so she understands how the appeals process works. Kagan was appointed by Obama in March, 2009. She has offices in the Supreme Court Building. And, her brief is mostly an argument that the Bill of Rights just isn’t practical in the computer age.

“…before a search commences, case agents will need to spend days, weeks, or even months teaching both the underlying law and the specifics of the particular case to members of a filter team,” she complains. “These concerns will be particularly acute in cases involving national security, because spies and terrorists often receive specialized training about concealing their tracks…. In some districts, computer searches have ground to a complete halt, and, throughout the circuit, investigations have been delayed or impeded.”

The only conceivable explanation of why Kagan is asking for the super rehearing is that she is obviously trying to keep the case away from the current Supreme Court. Because she thinks she will lose. Because she is afraid that the Supreme Court will say out loud that the Constitution means what it says.

Which raises another issue you will never hear an anchorman say out loud: If the Supreme Court affirms Kozinski’s opinion it is very likely that many more people than Dave Burgess will have to be let out of prison. The continuing ambiguity, on the other hand, prevents appeals based on the Ninth Circuit ruling.

And, there is no telling when the line the limits illegal from legal computer searches will be allowed to shine. The week before Christmas, Judge Kozinski wrote “The court is considering whether it should grant panel or full-court rehearing in this matter and will issue an order granting or denying rehearing in due course.”

Open Secret

In the last ten years, the United States Department of Justice has come to rely on “plain sight” computer searches to “get bad guys.” The dirty possibility under the legal rock is that scores of “bad” men have been framed in exactly the same way Dave Burgess was framed.

It is an openly discussed fact that the sort of computer searches conducted on Dave Burgess’ computer equipment are intended to “accidently discover” child pornography. A couple of weeks ago Steve Kalar, the senior federal public defender in San Francisco, told Shane Harris of the National Journal that federal investigators “routinely search seized computers for evidence of…child pornography” on hard drives. “It’s a technological fallacy to say that an agent is tripping through the computer and finds this,” Kalar said.

And that raises what has always been the real question about the Burgess case: If the police were lying about why Burgess was stopped, and why his motor home was searched, and why his computer was searched and what they were really hoping to find when they searched it, then when did they stop lying? Did they stop lying after they planted the evidence they found or before?

In the meantime, Dave Burgess is still in prison.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

100 Responses to “Where The Burgess Case Stands Now”

  1. Rebel Says:

    Dear Austin,

    Framing Dave Burgess is close but it isn’t done. Dave Burgess has another appeal hearing coming up, by the way.


  2. Austin Says:

    Hey Rebel – I know you’ve been busy with the Carolina case = but I am wondering where The Burgess BOOK Stands Now. I am having a hard time finishing The Working Press. Got a time frame?

  3. Miss Krista Says:

    I can’t stay silent on someone’s comments somewhere hereaabouts regarding outcomes being the result of “choices”, and “why” would such a great bunch like LE frame a guy up, or “maybe this guy is just a bad guy”, whatever. The point is – how and when did anyone who claims to be “good” OR “bad” acquire the right to make that judgment about ANYONE unless they’ve had a personal or obvious brush with the other individual which requires action on their part? This is what has been fought hard for for over 200 years, due process, equal treatment under the law, other VITAL and HARD FOUGHT principles which a certain crowd seems HELLBENT on DESTROYING by “tactics” (ie: specially convened courts? WTF? Equal Protection???)

    I think those comments are classic examples of what’s wrong here – how can one man (or woman), any class of man for that matter, presume to know how or why a person or persons have become what they have in life? This is why when we base our entire country, lives, fight wars, and stand for and stand by them for so long with such incredibly beautiful results, and then some group – no matter what they “claim” as far as their participation or ultimate motive, tries to justify changing EVERYTHING during their (what will ultimately be) relatively short tenure, because they’re smarter or more “well educated” or being paid well and more often or something than their predecessors, the rest of us must stand up and say “NOT ON MY WATCH.” Thankfully I finally see a little of that beginning to be heard – just hope and pray it’s not too little too late to save our sorry asses. BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE is our founding premise – NOT By the Sheeple for the Government. Don’t be sceeeered, wake up and stand up – if you find yourself on the record ever (ha) think hard and be sure to say it out loud, claim your civil rights, say WHY DON’T THESE APPLY TO ME, file a federal case or cases asking the same questions – do it yourself if you can’t find a “lawyer” to do it – most won’t it’s not popular. Just be prepared for even more of a war than you’re fighting in your head and conscious – but what choice? Not one I’m willing to just shuffle of on the youngsters (God help us can you imagine that?!) [Course not like some of us had a choice…oh didn’t someone suggest it’s our “choices” that got us here?]

    But if you do all this, or somehow stand up, be warned you could wind up like some folks I know of better now that I’ve been readin Rebel’s amazing fountain of information…or my dead Husband/Daddy.

    Is it getting so bad we have to leave the country to sustain the attacks a lot of true patriots are enduring and “win the war”? Some would seemingly like folks to think so. But if you do go, take your computer with ya…and just bring a copy back when you return, and try not to forget to come back haha

    Just sayin’

  4. Miss Krista Says:

    Just havin’ read all this I bet there are a lot of LE’s out there sayin “Thank God for Chainsaw and James and all their friends and other sheeple out there or our long tested Just Us System may begin to fail.” Just thinkin’. Again I’ve gotta repeat that old HA Support sticker they sold/posted at benefits: Protect Your Freedom, Support Ours. Apparently we all need to go to A LOT MORE support rallys.

  5. Jabba Says:

    Sled > Heh, had the lobotomy – couldn’t you tell from all the sh!t I write?



  6. sled tramp Says:

    RE: Doctor….
    Hey! Glad to hear from ya.Better a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy….

  7. Jabba Says:

    Of course, I’ll run the [email protected] spellchecker on the documents before I e-mail them out, as opposed to the crap I write in my posts.


  8. Jabba Says:

    If anybody’s remtoely interested, I’ll send you a couple of copies of two *.pdf files I’ve been making some notes in about securing PC’s against this sort of thing.

    Always interested in consturctive criticism and if anybody’s got any better ideas.

    E-mail me at…

    [email protected]

    if you want a copy.


  9. sled tramp Says:

    This guy won’t last a month….at least sometimes things do go right.

  10. Jabba Says:

    Yeah, you’re spot-on right with that Rebel – however – there are some interesting software packages that can run in the background and show exactly what, when and how files have been accessed anywhere on the usable portions of a hard disk.

    “Usable portions” are the operative words there, because – as you’ve reported before – the virus/bot-net approach can put files on portions of a disk that the OS can’t even reach. There’s not a lot you can do about that one, except good, up-to-date, anti-virus and malware protection.

    My approach would be (1) use Windows Vista or 7 Ultimate with all patches/updates (2) use a top of the range internet security suite with patches/updates (3) use a third-party disk encryption package like PGP Desktop Professional, Jetico BestCrypt or TrueCrypt and (4) use a professional level disk/file access logging package (constantly running and independently password protected), like PA File Sight Professional to watch what’s going on on your disk and (5) use a third-party, online backup solution like Carbonite that backs-up data and, in doing so, keeps an independent log of files and when they are added to and changed on, your hard disk drive.

    Official personnel will still be able to get past disk encryption – the manufacturers will provide the means – but, the logs will have to be tampered with if files are to be planted.

    Missing log files – that happen to go missing when the machine’s in LE custody – have got to be one step too far, even for the most inept defense team surely? Not to mention the fact that those log files will have been backed up (hopefully) to an online third party storage facility.

    The only way round that would be to remove the hard disk drive and copy onto it directly from a second machine, but once again, the holes in the encryption and disk access logs should leave an audit trail even a lawyer could follow.

    The above solution aint cheap though (nor is it 100% protection – no such thing exists). It’s about $1200 dollars worth of software alone.



  11. Rebel Says:

    Dear Jabba,

    An obvious way to infect a computer with child porn is to use a virus and zombie bot the box. I know that has happened. And all the usual security steps, like frequently updated anti-virus software and a firewall help protect from that. I don’t want to sound too paranoid, but “official personnel” have access to OS back doors on both boxes and routers. The “official personnel” worry me the most.

    your pal,

  12. Not Surprised Says:

    Thanks, Jabba. I was actually hoping you would weigh in………

  13. Jabba Says:

    Y’know, out here in the Canadian boonies, I have to rely on a really crappy USB stick modem for internet access.

    Sometimes the connection is so shit I fail to post what I’ve written. So I have to rite again and post again.

    Sometimes the connection is so shit, it just looks like I didn’t post, but really i did and it’s just taking ages to show up.

    So, because I’m impatient and never learn from my fuck-ups, I post again and I end up with two, sometimes identical posts.

    My sincere apologies for the times I fuck up in this manner. It’s bad enough that I bore the ass off you good people once, let alone twice.



  14. Jabba Says:

    >> In order to intsall child porn on a remote computer, it would first have to be hacked, then the material downloaded from a known child porn portal, THEN concealed in some manner from the rightful owner of the computer.

    The only other alternative would be to remotely install files and that is extremely difficult.

    There may be programs or software available to safegaurd 100% against this, I am not aware of any.

    (1) Fully encrypt your hard disk drive using advanced encryption (e.g. 256-bit Blowfish or the like). Software such as Truecrypt can help.

    (2) Run an online back-up programme which backs up EVERYTHING on your hard disk (e.g. Carbonite). this will back everything up to a remote server and contain logs of what files were on the drive that were/not backed up or excluded from back-up.

    (3) Keep Windows or whatever OS you use fully updated and make use of all security features. Use a good Firewall and malware protection suite (e.g. Kaspersky) and keep that fully updated. Investigate custom options to keep track of incoming data streams when connected to the internet.

    (4) Use full hard disk drive logging which keeps track of file deletion creation. Windows itself offers some tools in this area, but they’re not great. Some custom tools are useful for this, but nones eem to really do what’s necessary… I’m looking into this. Crystal reports currently looks promising.

    I am currently doing a GREAT DEAL of research in this area and, when I’m ready, I’ll put something together, aguide probably, with a list of software and links etc., that could be useful to readers of this site.

    With our host’s permission, I’ll e-mail it out to people or upload the document somewhere and publish a link if the demand is high.


  15. not surprised Says:

    Most “child porn” laws do not differentiate in that any chld under a CERTAIN age constitues child porn. Hypothetically, that young thang you have been chatting with who swears she is 18, sends you a topless photo. If she is 14 or under you’re in some serious trouble if those pics are found.

    Consequently, if you belong to any “social network” like Facebook or MySpace, YOU are responsible for the inbound e-mail content because these sites take a very hard line about privacy and do not monitor member content. If you have an account that is inactive, usually your last sign on date is displayed. it would not be too difficult for any other member to send something to your inbox. Cancel all accounts you do not monitor daily.

    It doesn’t have to be highly technical or a global conspiracy to get illegal material onto your hard drive.

    In Burgess’ case, the feds actually had control of his computer drives. It is extremely difficult to cause material to download to a foreign hard drive with only remote access,not leave an origin trace and without the user’s knowledge, but it very defintely can be done. About the only people capable of doing it would be governments.

    In order to intsall child porn on a remote computer, it would first have to be hacked, then the material downloaded from a known child porn portal, THEN concealed in some manner from the rightful owner of the computer.

    The only other alternative would be to remotely install files and that is extremely difficult.

    There may be programs or software available to safegaurd 100% against this, I am not aware of any.

  16. Rock Says:

    If you backed up your computer every day, then perhaps you would have something a computer expert could testify to in court. For instance: if you backed up the night before it was seized (and the backup had not been seized) . . . then maybe an expert could testify if a file was inserted from the time you last backed up until the date the computer was seized. It’s not much, but there’s a chance.
    Any more ideas of how people could guard against this?

  17. Rebel Says:

    Dear Rookery,

    Yeah, child porn investigations are an investigative tool. It recently came up in an investigation of the AOA in Tennessee. Child porn charges are a tool like RICO. RICO is a way to threaten somebody who gets caught with recreational amounts of recreational drugs with 20 years in the penitentiary. Manufactured child porn cases are a way to do exactly the same thing. If you are holding an ounce of weed an affadivit can be contrived to justify searching your computer. Once the feds have your computer they can put anything they want on it. Voila! Child porn!

    your pal,

  18. rookery Says:

    Came on this site just a little while back so am now catching up a little on some postings.

    However I can tell you that my own club was approached by a senior figure in our own justice system, who for various reasons of his own, gave us a very detailed briefing on how elements inside his own department were looking into the child porn angle to fragment some 1% clubs from the inside out. Along the lines of Careful placement of evidence to indicate a club or charter connection to Kiddie porn in all its facets, sale, abuse, sharing etc etc..hard to think of anything more damaging to a club reputation.

    Normally here this sort of approach: Cops, The press, DA office or whatever gets junked stopped or laughed away before you get into any kind of tete a tete with the system or someone who works for them but I can tell you we are taking this stuff very very seriously indeed and have taken extensive legal advice on how best to counter any allegations that might arise. This sack of shit all originates we were told from some agency within the US justice system. we’re in europe.

    love to hear from any 1% club member who has heard anything similar..post fellas post..

  19. Hermis Says:

    Chainsaw: The situation is pretty fucked up in all of America, including the oilfields of Louisiana and Texas, when it comes to the LE scumbags who think they are above the law.

    Maybe in Louisiana and Texas they refer to them as Sheriffs, you know the Bubba’s of the States. Either way: FBI, DEA, Bubba’s, Sheriffs, ATF, municipal cops-any of them who think they are above the law and set people up should be hanged in public on national TV on Friday nights; to start the weekend off right for the working man!

    Just sayin’

  20. Rebel Says:

    Dear Bud,

    Why thank you partner. Link away.

    your pal,

  21. Rebel Says:

    Dear Chainsaw,

    Oh, I am sure the fucked up will be coming to your door real soon now. Good luck.

    your pal,

  22. Not Surprised Says:

    Chainsaw, this was not just against any one person or entity. However, Burgess was Corp. President of Hells Angels Motorcycle Corp.

    None of us except Dave Burgess knows for sure if he is innocent. I am a betting man. I’d put the farm on his being not guilty.

  23. i pee freely Says:

    rebel all i have to say life is not fair not all the time. but sometime we put our selfs in bad situations

  24. chainsaw Says:

    Not LEO here, I’m oilfield trash from Louisiana living in Texas for the past few years.

    I am not familiar with West Coast 1%er politics and the LEO issues. If this whole event happened just to embarrass the Angels it sounds like the situation is pretty fucked up out there.

    Which I guess is exactly Rebel’s point.

  25. Bud Says:

    I enjoy your page and read up on it several times a day just to keep up. Since I discovered this by way of word of mouth I myself have been telling people about your column here cuz I believe as a proud american biker the information you provide along with all those who comment intelligently here should be brought to the forefront. With your permission I’d like to post a link to this site on some social networking sites (facebook, myspace, etc.) in order to inform and enlighten as many as possible.


  26. Rebel Says:

    Dear i pee freely,

    It was a borrowed trailer. Those two guys were on their way to pick up the sticker from the owner when Arnell stopped them. Arnell had just inspected the whole rig for some violation while the two guys were in a diner having breakfast and the motor home and trailer were parked. He found the expired trailer tag. He couldn’t search the home when it was parked, because of a legal technicality, so he let them pull back on to the road and stopped them. The drug sniffing dog had already been dispatched before they ever pulled out of the lot.

    I think they were going to get the Burgess. Expired trailer tag, tail light, failure to signal a lane change, improperly inflated tires, “courtesy safety inspection.” Some pretense would be invented. They were going to stop the guy.

    If you have been around the block, I trust you have, then you know these things can just come at you out of the fucking dark when you are least expecting it. One night when I was young, I just went outside to look at some fucking bunny rabbits. Full moon night. Rough time in my life. I just used to find peace sometimes in going out at night and watching this whole warren of bunny rabbits come out in the moonlight to nibble on grass. I can see those bunnies still. They were all so small and innocent and peaceful looking in the moonlight. Next thing I knew I was spread eagle on the ground with a gun up against my head. I fit the description of a burglary suspect. It took five hours before the cops decided they had the wrong guy.

    This shit just happens sometimes. Sure, Burgess should have ridden his bike to the run or he should have gotten a different trailer. Who knows? There is always something.

    your pal,

  27. Not Surprised Says:

    Here is an article about a guy who had child porn on his hard drive. It took a year before the FBI came knocking. Also, note that they could not find it initially, and when they did, the FBI admitted the guy could not even access it if he wanted to.

    Downloading child pornography is not a crime to be taken lightly. While we’ve all seen the To Catch a Predator episodes, it may come as shock to find out that the mere presence of child pornography on your computer’s hard drive is enough to send you to prison for 20 years.

    Matthew White of Sacramento is learning this lesson the hard way. The 22-year-old man is facing hard time for downloading child porn “accidentally.”

    White claims that after using Limewire to download College Girls Gone Wild, he discovered that inappropriate images of children were also downloaded. Upon the discovery, White claims the photos were immediately deleted.

    Now White faces up to 20 years in prison and plans to plead guilty, on the advice of his lawyer, in the hopes of getting a 3.5 year sentence instead (though he will have to register as a sex offender when released).

    CBS in Sacramento covered the story, and White’s story is as follows:

    “‘It didn’t appeal to me,’ he said. ‘I was looking for women my age, so I just wanted to download College Girls Gone Wild and accidentally downloaded underage pornography.’”

    About a year later, FBI agents showed up at his family’s home. The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn’t find anything.

    Investigators later were able to recover the deleted images from deep within the hard drive.

    “‘I asked them, “Where did you get that? I don’t remember that.” I asked them, “Could I access that if I wanted to?” Matt said. “They said no.”‘

    It appears as if the law has no lenience for accidents when it comes to child porn. If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, the only option you have to avoid White’s fate is to report the incident to the authorities immediately.

  28. Mr. America Says:

    I’ve been reading Dave’s site for years. He “always” made references to the “fact” he was surveiled by law enforcement. And, made references toward everyone being careful on the computer, to avoid viruses and other issues. I have a close personal friend who is an expert computer programmer for a large international computer firm. He’s looked at this case and clearly has stated, it would be impossible for a single person to have access to this much data in one hard-drive in such a short time. He thinks it was probably accessed through a crime lab and downloaded onto this particular hard-drive. And “I” agree, it doesn’t fit Dave’s profile. And, for the record, cops lie and do set people up. And, have a self-rightious lack of emotion doing it.

  29. Hermis Says:

    Dave Burgess was framed.

    The man knew he had a tag that needed to be renewed and was planning on renewing it in Wyoming, it was a Wyoming tag.

    Knowing he could(or in all probability, would) be stopped for the plate, there is no way on this fucking planet he would carry with him what the rat bastard cops in this case claim he had. No fucking way.

    Anyone believing anything different in this case is either LE trying to persuade public opinion, or maybe naive haphazard people who would carry huge inventories of incriminating evidence with them where ever they go without giving it a second thought.

    Especially if they’ve been in the cross hairs of LE for years.

    Yeah, right!

  30. i pee freely Says:

    rebel i read your blogs. i dont post much only when im bored, on this case i dont think dave is a rookie with le. i ben around the block a few times shit more than a few so if you r a high profile person that you know le is looking at why give them a chance to pull you over? i dont go around the block with expired tags much les across state

  31. Not Surprised Says:

    JAMES and Chainsaw:

    The largest internet child porn bust was “The Wonderland Club” which resulted in 107 pedophiles around the world be convicted. This was in 1998, arguably when internet technology was still fairly primitive by today’s standards.

    I don’t know if either of you are LEO, or if you have any idea how the topography of major child porn busts develop.

    Suffice it to say that 60,000 images as alleged by the Government ranks as the single largest “personal” collection in the US to date.

    In order to acquire this much material, how many different children would you suppose were involved? Bear in mind, -NONE- of the images were “animated”, the most valued and preferred type of this material.

    If we suppose 100 different still images per child= (a highly exaggerated number, based on trends)

    Then we are talking about 600 different human beings.

    Who are they, where are they?

    Never before has a child porn bust this large -NOT- resulted in a global search (as mandated by international law) for victims who may still be at risk.

    Get around that, then posit your theories.

    If it was known that the images used were “dated” and none of the victims were in danger, the absence of an international search makes sense.

    Also, there has never been a child porn bust this large where the arrests of others has not also been extant.

    Why? It is virtually impossible to acquire this amount of material from a single source or without the usual involvement of accomplices say, in countries where the legal system isn’t as harsh or the legal age is lower than it is in the US.

    If one or both of you DO have a LEO background, please relate the statistical odds of blindly stumbling on the “mother lode” of child porn, it does not happen.

    We are asked to believe that an astute State Patrol officer was the person who initiated this, predicated on the random stop of a motor home that was hauling a trailer with an improper tag.

    Both of you apply a reverse logic that a conspiracy is so highly improbable that Burgess must be guilty.

    It is as unlikely that a man who knows without question, he is in the cross hairs, would knowingly transport this material and in a vehicle he knows displays an improper tag.

    Just remember that in any conspiracy, it is less relevant who pulled the trigger than it is who paid for the bullets.

    Find who gains the most from Burgess removal.

  32. Rebel Says:

    Dear James,

    Yeah. I am saying that Dave Burgess was framed. I also think that people get framed every day in this country. And this is the first time anybody has ever called me naïve for thinking that cops routinely frame people. You really think that because I think cops frame people I am being naïve? Cynical I would get. Naïve, not so much.

    Okay, I have said all of this before but I will say it all again. Now. Just for you partner.

    I do not know whether framing Dave Burgess for interstate transportation of child pornography was pre-planned before the initial traffic stop at ten o’clock in the morning on July 24, 2007 or whether it was a crime of opportunity. I suspect it was a crime of opportunity but it was plausibly planned before the traffic stop.

    The FBI and the ATF both have field offices in Reno and both of those offices are administered by other offices in Vegas. I believe that the ATF or FBI offices in either or both of the Nevada cities gave the Wyoming Highway Patrol a heads-up and requested that Burgess’ motor home be stopped and searched. Wyoming Highway Patrol officer Matthew Arnell made the actual stop and so became part of the conspiracy.

    Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) Investigator Russell Schmitt is up to his neck in the conspiracy. Schmitt has a history in Wyoming of writing bogus search warrant affidavits. Schmitt has been legally excused for this by the Wyoming Supreme Court because even if he lies he does not “lie deliberately” or “recklessly.” I believe that both Schmitt and Arnell made an initial joint search of the computer and two portable hard drives by the side of the road. They both testified they did not. I happen to think they are lying.

    Schmitt “secured” and took custody of the motor home and I believe he blatantly perjured himself, twice – a child could see the lie – in obtaining the warrant to search the computer equipment. Arnell and Schmitt are still highly regarded in Wyoming law enforcement circles by the way. Righteous cops. Everybody knows who and what they are and they think who and what they are is a good thing.

    Agent Schmitt turned the computer equipment over to Wyoming DCI Intelligence Analyst Elvin Ehrhardt on July 25th, the day after the traffic stop. Circumstantially, the participation of Ehrhardt might argue against a pre-existing conspiracy to frame Burgess for child pornography. Ehrhardt is the Wyoming DCI “authority” on street gangs. It his job to gather and interpret “intelligence” about motorcycle clubs and I think that is what he was doing. It was an illegal search but it is a common police tactic. The fact, though, that Wyoming was gathering intelligence on the Hells Angels sure seems to me to indicate that the intelligence was being gathered for a federal police agency.

    Okay? Can we agree on that? This was a piece of federal police business being carried out by righteous cops who weren’t afraid to get dirty in Wyoming? Is that plausible to you?

    Ehrhardt took the computer and drives to the offices of the Wyoming Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Team. Eight guys work in that office. Five of them are Wyoming DCI and three of them are Federal Agents. One is an FBI agent. The office is also the state repository for child pornography. I believe the rationale for the library is so police can try to identify victims. It is also a good place to take computer equipment if you want to plant child porn on that equipment.

    Ehrhardt then transferred custody of the hardware to another DCI cop, Special Agent Randall Huff. Most of Huff’s work involves child pornography. I personally think the evidence against Burgess was fabricated between the time official custody was transferred to Huff and when the evidence was “discovered.” I don’t know that Huff did it but I think somebody with access to the evidence did.

    Huff held the hardware for a week and then transferred custody to another DCI cop named Special Agent Scott Hughes. Interestingly, the hardware on which the pornography was found was purchased in Las Vegas although Burgess lived in Reno. To the best of my knowledge there is not tangible evidence, like fingerprints or a record that he bought these particular drives, to connect Burgess to them. There is tangible evidence that he bought a couple of drives in Reno. But not Vegas.

    Special Agent Hughes did nothing with the drives for 20 full days. Now I am just guessing, but I am pretty sure that Agent Hughes did not plant the evidence but he knew what evidence he was going to find when he looked. On August 21st, a month after the traffic stop, Hughes had a meeting about the evidence with the Senior Assistant Attorney General of the State of Wyoming, David L. Delicath. Not just some DA. Delicath was the second ranking law enforcement officer in Wyoming. And, at the time, this search was officially about searching for drug dealer “trophy photos.” Okay?

    Me? I think that meeting was about cops putting “their careers/retirement and freedom on the line to frame Burgess and conduct this elaborate black op.” But, maybe I am naïve.

    Then, still nothing happened for another sixteen days. Naïve people like me think that was the period of time when the people who put “their careers/retirement and freedom on the line to frame Burgess and conduct this elaborate black op” got their ducks in a row.

    Then, on September 6th, Agent Hughes began his forensic examination of one of the portable hard drives, found “evidence of child exploitation,” and stopped and sought a new search warrant to look for child porn. Because I am naïve, like an OJ juror, I am suspicious of this chronology.

    As for the girl in the photographs, Burgess knew her and her mother. The girl and other adolescents had access to Burgess’ camera and to his lap top and to his portable hard drives.

    I have said this before, too. I have a fourteen-year-old son. He is more computer savvy that I am and fourteen-year-old girls seem to like him. I do not think so, but it is possible, that some fourteen-year-old girl at some point sent my son some provocative pictures and whether he erased them or not a forensic examination of all the computer equipment in my home would find them if they were ever there. So then what? Does that make me obsessed with child porn?

    There are several plausible explanations of how the pictures of this child came to be on Burgess’ hard drive. The pictures of this child included vulgar captions and the captions were done in an Adobe application called PhotoShop. As far as I know, Burgess did not use PhotoShop. As far as I know, he used an old Corel application. Burgess was what software people call an “early adapter.” He got used to using an old kind of software and never bothered to learn to use PhotoShop. PhotoShop is fairly standard in both FBI and ATF offices, however.

    Most people who know Burgess well seem to think that a morbid obsession with child pornography is really out of character for the guy. If Burgess had seriously assaulted or killed someone, especially someone in another motorcycle club, or had been busted for selling drugs, or selling guns, or illegally running whores across the state line into California, or stealing motorcycles, or any number of other things I would find those accusations to be less suspicious than an accusation of collecting child pornography.

    I have thought about it. I have tried to put myself in this guy’s boots. I don’t think Burgess did this. I think he was framed. I might be wrong. So far twelve jurors and four judges have disagreed with me. But I think cops frame people all the time. I think righteous cops think it is their duty to “get bad guys” and I think these cops thought Burgess was a bad guy.

    I also think cops routinely lie for each other and to judges and juries all the time. All the time. And I think it is naïve of you to think that they don’t because it might endanger their careers. Endanger their careers and their retirement!? Are you serious, James? Lying never jeopardizes a cop’s career. Lying is usually what makes a cop’s career. Lying is how cop’s patch in. I think cops are just prospects until they prove themselves and get a little dirt on their hands. Then the other cops know they can depend on the new guy. Shit happens. It happens in motorcycles clubs and it happens in police deparments.

    I am not apologizing for the Hells Angels or anything the Angels have ever done or anything other clubs think they have done or are doing or deserve. Okay? But, I think one of the reasons why Burgess was framed for this charge was because it had the maximum potential to embarrass the Angels. That is why this charge.

    All due respect to you and Chainsaw. I think I am already being pretty real.

    Your pal,

  33. James Says:

    So all of these Law Enforcement are going to put their careers/retirement and freedom on the line to frame Burgess and conduct this elaborate black op? Then they have to count on all of their co-conspirators to keep quiet forever? Get real. The pics of the girlfriend’s daughter are hard to explain away.
    Everyone posting here except Chainsaw (and me) sounds like they could have been jurors at OJ’s murder trial.

  34. Bud Says:

    I believe that your scenario number 1 is partially correct, in that they wanted his computer. Most likely to find any information regarding club activity or more important to the feds info on other clubs. I went to an arraignment hearing here in vegas late 2008 to vouch for a brother as far as his work goes since he works for me, and when his case came up the prosecutor said that they found names addresses and phone numbers of members of a “rival” club on his home computer, this would indicate intention for further criminal activity (D.A’s words).
    But when nothing of that nature was found in this instance, and factor in the time they had the computer before bringing forth any charges, plus the fact that Burgess is a professional photagrapher, its a slam dunk to believe that they planted kiddy porn evidence using his own profession against him like the carpenter that kills his wife with a framing hammer, he cant say he doesnt own one cus thats what he does.

  35. not-a-hippie Says:


    Child porn is the hot button worldwide, so it’s almost guaranteed to get a guilty verdict or a plead to avoid publicity. In fact, if the boy is guilty of child porn, I’d be honored to take him out, irregardless if he walks on water or rides….child porn IS bad.

    Drugs? Shoot, our USA president admits to selling crack as a kid. A drug conviction is a yawner and rehab is the common sentence. Go to any NA meeting and there’s usually a 1%er in the back getting his card signed….heh.

    If they’re going to frame anyone, child porn is a guaranteed conviction.

  36. chainsaw Says:

    All I read on this was what I read here. Nope, I did not do a full personal investigation.

    I totally agree the searches were illegal (camper and computer), the logic that “we found some drugs so we have the probable cause to search his computer” is just wrong, and the computer being searched by police instead of an independent forensic lab is scary as hell. I applaud Rebel for pointing out this crap that’s going on.

    Rebel proposes that the cops went through this entire elaborate scheme to get to Dave’s computer just so they could plant porn on it. The obvious flaw is that why didn’t they just plant a lot of drugs in the camper or on his bike which is way easier to do? So the porn plant theory needs more convoluted reasoning – it had to be porn so no one would question it. Sorry but that is getting too far into left field for me.

    I can see doing that to Al Capone Public Enemy #1. But the overly elaborate scheme to plant porn on some dude who happens to be HA doesn’t make sense to me. Dave would have to be a pretty high profile bad guy for multiple cops to collaborate and illegally conspire on a frame up of this magnitude. Planting evidence is way more serious than stretching the truth to get a search warrant.

    If you said they stopped his camper and had a drug dog conveniently handy because he is HA I could believe that. If they thought he was a big time criminal and a couple of rouge cops with a personal beef planted drugs, I could believe that. But the whole elaborate traffic stop, smelled drugs, found drugs, warrant for computer, plant pictures on computer frame up involving both state a federal doesn’t make sense.

    I agree the sequence of events occured and the cops went to a lot of trouble and illegal searches to get to Dave’s computer. But why?

    I see two realistic explanations: (1) they already knew the porn was there and cooked this up to get to his computer, or (2) Dave has been involved in some serious shit and the cops consider him a high profile bad guy for something else he did. And he is so bad they found 3 or more cops and DAs willing to risk getting involved in an illegal evidence planting frame job.

    And the third one – elaborate illegal frame job because they just don’t like HA or brothel owners.

    With the evidence presented here, #1 appears more likely. If you think the porn was planted, then it’s #2 or #3. Although Rebel said the cops were out to get Dave, there is nothing presented here to explain why he is such a criminal they would risk an illegal evidence planting conspiracy.

    I am not passing judgement, I am just exploring the logic of the facts and evidence presented by Rebel and expressing an impartial opinion. If the cops planted porn on Dave’s computer I hope one day the computer tech confesses and old Dave wins a multi-million dollar lawsuit and Rebel makes millions on the book and I will post an apology.

  37. sled tramp Says:

    Wait….waaaaitdaminute….eastern European grandma porn? Hava heart for us greybeards Rebel…Dem tractor calander cuties sends me droolin’….

  38. Rebel Says:

    Dear James,

    I do not delete dissenting opinions. Everybody is free to disagree with me. Prosecutors, cops and ATF agents disagree with me on this site and regular readers of this site include member of every one percent club in the US, Britain, Oz, Europe and New Zealand. So it is not always one big happy party where everybody thinks the same thing all the time.

    Comments to this site include at least 100 pieces of Spam per day which I go through and delete by hand. Probably what happened was your comment was surrounded by ads for Viagra and eastern European grandma porn and it was accidentally deleted.

    Sorry about that. Shit happens.

    your pal,

  39. Bud Says:

    It would appear to me that you fall into the category of what I described in an earlier post as someone who believes the accused is guilty otherwise they wouldnt have been arrested in the first place.
    Remember that theyre are 3 sides to every story; yours, mine, and the truth. You should do a bit more reading before you pass a judgement and make a public statement.

  40. Hermis Says:

    Chainsaw says: “Let me suggest we consider Occam’s Razor – The simplest explanation is likely to be true.

    “The simplest explanation is that the cops knew about Dave’s secret child porn pictures either through the girl or through other ongoing child porn investigations”.

    The simplest explanation here is, you obviously have not investigated or read any of the documents associated with Dave’s case. So you’re obviously taking the simplest route to cosign the condemnation of someone who was framed by law enforcement.

    It is so much easier(the simplest explanation)to comment without first investigating, which is known as: “Contempt Prior to Investigation”.

    Far too many in today’s world suffer from contempt prior to investigation that the law enforcement scumbags who frame people have found the practice of that phrase perhaps their greatest weapon in keeping their illegal actions hidden from the average bear.

    Part of the problem today is far too many are seeking the easiest, “simplest” way to every thing in life.

    After reading the numerous pages involved in this case, you’ll be singing a different tune. But that would prove burdensome to the “simplest” approach.

  41. sled tramp Says:

    Just wanted to say that I believe Burgess is innocent.

  42. DOCB Says:

    Chainsaw, I think I read somewhere that the pictures of the girl were on the hard drive but had not been accessed. If that’s true he probably didn’t know they were there.

  43. DirtyBruin Says:

    chainsaw: I fail to see how that’s “simpler” than “Many cops hate high-profile Hell’s Angels so much that they’ll do anything to put them in prison.”

  44. James Says:

    Chainsaw, I agreed with your post that Burgess is guilty as charged. the Rebel amazingly didn’t delete your contrary view to the Dave Burgess cheer-leading going on here like he did mine. Nice job Rebel, at least your censorship is not 100%…I was starting to think no dissenting opinions were allowed here but you let one slip through.

  45. not-a-hippie Says:

    The cops are using technology to frame all sorts of people and the list is getting longer every day. I got my own stories, like a tape of me saying things about things that I never did say—it sounded like my voice—enough for the warrant, anyway. They used tech to duplicate my voice.

    These computers are becoming a mixed blessing. I’m almost missing the days of lying, rat-faced, bastard snitches. Almost….

  46. chainsaw Says:

    Let me suggest we consider Occam’s Razor – The simplest explanation is likely to be true.

    The simplest explanation is that the cops knew about Dave’s secret child porn pictures either through the girl or through other ongoing child porn investigations.

    Because of this information, they did target him and went through an elaborate scheme to get to his computer where they knew the porn was located. This makes more sense than the cops going from traffic stop to drug sniffing dog to computer search hoping to maybe, shot in the dark, find something just to frame him because he is HA.

    The kicker for me are the mysterious pictures of the girlfriend’s daughter. I think this is the smoking gun. The fact that no one has said how they got on there means the daughter never testified. She is being protected. She could have been the one to tip off the police in the first place. Who knows? But the point is that the police did not put those there.

    And the argument that none of Dave’s friends or acquaintances knew about the child porn means nothing. That is not exactly the kind of thing one would discuss with anyone, at all, ever.

    These are just my thoughts. I don’t know anything about this case other than what I have read here.

  47. sled tramp Says:

    Yeah, I’ve been practicing my “Sieg Heil’s” and “Da Comrade” recently in preparation for the big day…
    sled tramp

  48. Rebel Says:

    Dear Hermes,

    Good luck. If the federales can do it to Dave Burgess they can do it to any of us. Burgess just got their attention.

    your pal,

  49. Hermis Says:

    The following is my actual response sent to a friend after receiving his letter of concern for me as a result of my decision to report on the case of David Burgess. I omitted my friends name out of respect for his privacy.

    Hi ____, I appreciate your concern and I thank you for your support.

    What drew me to this case is what I discovered after reading about it in various articles and then court documents pertaining to the trial and appeal.

    Having concerns of my own I gave this much thought and weighed the pros & cons of doing the story.

    The first commentary I did on this case resulted in my show at “True Talk” AM830 WCRN being terminated. Seems as though “True Talk” AM830 WCRN cannot handle real “True Talk”.

    The mere fact of what this man stands accused of is enough to make people avoid even the slightest of discussion about it.

    And it is my honest opinion that is why he was charged this way.

    Anyone who actually reads the court proceedings and documents will walk away convinced of a true crime alright, but not by Dave Burgess.

    Also, the disturbing fact that people refuse to look past what the government claims left me no choice but to report on the story to help shine light onto the underhanded and illegal methods employed by State & Federal agents(including Federal Courts) in this case.

    Not a popular case to report on, I admit.

    But certainly one that MUST be reported on due to the gestapo type tactics used by supposed law abiding members of our taxpayer funded law enforcement agencies, and the innocence of the accused.

    Remaining silent on the unlawful actions of those entrusted with upholding the law makes one a willing and knowing participant in the dismantling of our Constitutional rights.

    Often, the most unpopular cases in America test the validity of our Constitution and the rights afforded each and every American.

    And nowhere, absolutely nowhere, is unlawful behavior and deliberately denying someone his or her Constitutional rights at the hands of our taxpayer funded law enforcement community, permissible or allowed by law.

    The U.S. Department of Justice employees involving themselves in behavior running contrary to our Constitution in cases such as the one at hand must not be permitted to go unnamed, unnoticed nor unpunished.

    The easiest thing in the world for law enforcement to do is: accuse a member of any organization who’s name strokes the flames of intrigue, fear, and general confusion of what “In Fact” the organization represents; as opposed to what we have been conditioned to believe.

    I am not blind to the fact that some members of this organization have committed crimes, I am aware of that. No different than members of large organizations such as Banks, Insurance Companies, Oil Companies, U.S. Presidents, U.S. Congress, U.S. Senate, State political leaders and on and on.

    The entire company, Congress, Senate is not attacked or condemned when a member commits a crime. Why is it so with the organization Dave Burgess belongs to?

    There is no question in my mind that the large corporations and political branches I mention above, have caused more harm to the American people and the world as a whole, have broken more laws and committed more crimes than ANY organization like the one Mr. Burgess belongs to.

    Add to that the fact that Mr. Burgess is innocent and the question should be: Scales of Justice?

    I fail to see the parity, fairness, the equitable dispensing of “Justice” on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice when they allow corporate raiders to destroy the lives of ALL Americans, the American financial system and our economy, when the crimes are so blatantly obvious there; yet find it acceptable to frame individual American taxpayers on a surprisingly more regular basis.

    I would not be reporting on this story if I did not believe in my heart that Dave Burgess was setup and framed by the State of Wyoming and Federal authorities.

    The U.S. Department of Justice knew exactly what it was doing when they planted, or caused to have planted, the child pornography on David Burgess and the manner by which they did so should send a screaming shrill through every American’s intellect!

    But first we must show, and teach, Americans of the lows many in law enforcement will go to in order “to get” people they don’t like and cannot “get” otherwise.

    Americans need to get rogue law enforcement agents whom are out of control back under control, or risk marching in unison to the shouting orders of the dictating bastards trying to do away with the Constitution of these United States.

    Again, I thank you for your concern and support.

    Your Friend,


  50. Jabba Says:

    Thanks Rebel. Yeah, well acquainted with Occam’s Razor and it sounds very much like you’re right.

    One of the whole shitload of things that really piss me off about this, is that if the defence team had any kind of IT smarts, and access for their own independent analysis, it should have been pretty straightforward to prove that the files had been placed on the hard disk drive at a time and date when the disk was not in Burgess’ possession.

    Depending on the state of the PC and/or disk/s, it may even be possible to do that now.

    EnCase has grown into a very smart package, and does things now that it didn’t do when I went on the courses, but it isn’t perfect. I didn’t want my last posts to turn into some sort of Windows security and forensics lecture… besides, if anybody wants to know more, the internet is full of stuff.

    You’re right when you say EnCase looks at areas of a disk that the OS doesn’t, but with careful use of system logs, good encryption and file deletion software, your privacy can be protected and you can keep a system that would be difficult for the average, thick-as-pig-shit, LEO to fuck with – without making it obvious what they had done.

    However, all that takes time, effort and far better than average IT skills to set up properly. When people have done that in the UK, LE has made it look bad in court by saying, essentially, “Only somebody guilty as Hell would bother to do all that.”

    It doesn’t tend to go down well with Joe Public on the jury, when the defence is, “Well, I only did it because I know what a bunch of lying fucks the police are.”

    It seems you is damned if you do and well and truly fucked if you don’t.



Leave a Reply